Topic: Are you running Bitcoin Core through Tor? Should it be a requirement? - page 3. (Read 822 times)

Well, I don't need support from your part in my decision to use VPN, rather than TOR, when connected my node to the net, sorry. I'm comfortable with my multi-hop VPN service. If you comfortable with TOR, please, use it.  No objection from my part, cheese.

P.S. As I got it, anyone, including me, is free to cast his vote for one of two options  in this pole. As I see right now,  No TOR option is ahead of TOR

That is not how onion routing works. Exit nodes are used when and only when traffic are routed to the clearnet. Otherwise, they are routed within the network through the relay nodes and at no point in time will they reach the so-called specialized exit nodes. The traffic within the network are encrypted end-to-end and it is not possible to use any methods to decrypt those without explicit knowledge of the keys.

If you've read the leaks on these Tor exploitation, traffic analysis with the ISP is the only chance that they're able to gain any sort of confirmations. Regardless, the security risk with running Bitcoin Core through Tor is greatly reduced. Bitcoin Core has good defenses against topological analysis and you need to control and compromise all of the connections to be able to break the privacy of it. That is fairly hard.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is, it is significantly easier to compromise a VPN provider than it is to compromise a distributed network. To facilitate discussion, it would be great for your claims to be substantiated and any research that we can do on our own won't be conclusive and allow us to support your opinion. Thanks!

As matter of fact specialized exit nodes running by surveillance agencies on behalf of government are capable to catch any info they are focused on. Nothing to add. DYOR.


No illusion. I don't need it. Give it to secret service in your country.  


Choose right VPN provider and it will never happen.  

I'm reluctant to open all surveillance techniques publicly, sorry. DYOR.

What do exit nodes have to do with connecting your full node to the Bitcoin network via onion URLs? When connecting to a hidden service, both the recipient and the sender utilize rendezvous points, not exit nodes that can de-anonymize the content's destination.

There is no illusion. If I give you my onion URL to connect, neither you nor me can de-anonymize each other. Let alone the Internet providers.

I don't understand how a trust-requiring service gives you no illusion comparably to a peer-to-peer, no-trust-requiring, anonymity network. The VPN provider will hand over any details requested by your government, or their government.

Yeah, not all nodes, but I can not choose the "transparent"  one.




By discovering   TOR packets in users' traffic  they suspect  them in  illicit activities  and put  those users into blacklist for further scrutiny. This is the common practice for almost all governments.

I know one can  obfuscate TOR traffic. However, government is no slouch when it comes to  discover such traffic.

1. Not all exit node operated by surveillance agencies.
2. Exit node isn't needed when you communicate with other node which use .onion rather than IPv4/IPv6.
3. Using encryption limit information could be extracted by malicious exit node.
4. What exactly do you mean by "blacklisted by my government."?

Strong opposite  to  TOR  for my node.

TOR is full of exit-node-traps laid down by surveillance agencies, thereby it would give me the illusion for anonymous communication with Bitcoin network.

Besides if using it I would be blacklisted by my government.

I prefer multi-hop  VPN.

I am running a few nodes, as of now only 2 of them through tor. Used to be more.

It came down to the fact that I found tor performance to be wildly unpredictable at times. And since a couple of my nodes have several LN channels open, at times creating a simple transaction timed out. 2 minutes later it was fine. Never had that with clearnet. So, in the end I just started migrating them to clearnet.

Let's hear it for laziness overcoming privacy.

The other side is also time, work is busier and so are just a few things on the personal side, nothing bad, just stuff. So a couple of years ago I could have spent time figuring out what was causing the issues. Now, it would cut into getting something else done. I made the decision to close the channels and reopen clearnet ones to test. None of the timeout issues happened, so instead of figuring out what was causing the tor side problems I just left them on clearnet.

If I get more free time again, I'll probably move them back and see if I can figure out what was up. But, it might be a while before that happens.

-Dave

IMO the middle ground should be using VPN (which good privacy history and doesn't leak IP/DNS request) to perform initial sync.


One also could use curl to prevent sending browser fingerprint, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57186698.

I turned off my dedicated server a while ago due to it's price going out of controll. But yeah, i did run a full node for many (many, many,...) years on the clearnet. I do posses the skillset to run a node on the Tor network (i had several sites that were available on the clearnet and via a hidden service), but i always kept most of the same reasoning as the one i explained at the very top of this post, right up untill i shut down my server.

I agree with the opinions above that Core should never require Tor, and it should always be optional. Having said that, it's an option I will always use. I trust my government and my ISP less far than I could throw them. I don't even want them to know I'm interested in bitcoin, let alone own any, let alone run a node. Yes, the IBD takes weeks, but what's the rush?

There is a middle ground where you can sync your node over clearnet, but then use Tor to broadcast transactions. You can also broadcast transactions over Tor using the likes of http://mempoolhqx4isw62xs7abwphsq7ldayuidyx2v2oethdhhj6mlo2r6ad.onion/tx/push and bypass your node entirely.

I'm happy to have bumped into this thread (from the perspective of someone who's soon will have a node running). I assumed (by default) that I would run my node through TOR to increase anonymity, but it seems that it may not be a consensual opinion. Do you still run in in clearnet @mocacinno? Would surely also like to see the opinion of @o_e_l_e_o on this subject .

Big no from me. First of all, I assume that you mean generally "Bitcoin clients", not just the most popular one. If bitcoin clients required Tor to run, then the entire bitcoin network would be on Tor's fate. Bitcoin would need Tor to exist, and tor isn't that decentralized. Tor's nodes don't work the same way Bitcoin nodes do, but that's a different thing to discuss.

But there's something more important than that. Routing through layers would make bitcoin go slower. Right now, with 100mbps, it takes me around 48-72 hours to download the entire blockchain. With tor it'd be the tenfold of that. That means less nodes.

Having it as optional is better.

I'm fully with you regarding this. But if everyone would be required to run the node over Tor, how would you handle Sybil attacks? Tor-based connections don't provide any clues that could help figuring out whether different connections come from the same entity.

The ISP or anyone that can see the traffic between your computer and the clearnet can probably tell if the transaction originated from you or someone else. This probably would be the main reason why people are using Tor.

---

I second with the above sentiment. I don't think forcing everyone to be communicating through Tor is necessary. Bitcoin is after all not that privacy-centric by nature and trying to force it to be Tor only would just create a false impression that it helps to improve privacy in the first place. I've tried running through Tor using my main computer and it just doesn't work which could probably be something wrong with the configuration and it's just way too troublesome to debug and fix. It's kind of tough running Tor in certain countries without bridges and provided that you're able to download Tor in the first place.

I prefer options as well.  I lean towards TOR often but not always.  Choice is important because many have different use needs.

Even if it was objectively better, which I share the opinion of the posters above, that is isn't. I don't like the idea of forcing something, which would actually weaken the Bitcoin network. Let me just elaborate on this; We ideally want as many users running nodes as possible, right? So, by restricting nodes to only Tor would reduce the amount of people that run nodes, effectively weakening the network. Besides, Tor is optional, and works well with running a node. If a user has a specific reason why they want to use Tor, they can.

Even if, running a node on the Tor network was objectively better, which I think is probably up for debate by those in favour of it, I don't like the idea of forcing users to use a specific platform which isn't bulletproof in the first place. Tor is as anonymous as the end user makes it, and despite it being a pretty good out of the box solution it itself is susceptible to attacks, and if we are relying on what effectively is a third party program to run a Bitcoin node, any outages or vulnerabilities would have the chance of knocking out all Bitcoin nodes for a period of time, which is definitely not great for Bitcoin in general.

That's without addressing the issues of a slow tor connection, which could prevent people from running a full node, out of sheer impatience which again isn't a good idea for the overall health of the network. There's just so many reasons, some of which I haven't touched upon why forcing full nodes to run through Tor is a bad idea.

I run my node on the clearnet, and i'll probably keep running it on the clearnet...

Why? A multitude of reasons really... Some making more sense than others:

• Even IF a peer starts analysing the packages exchanged between him and you, he still doesn't know wether you created a transaction or merely broadcasted a transaction from somebody else. If you don't re-use addresses and mix coins before moving them to cold storage (or a hardware wallet), your privacy is reasonably safe... Safe enough for me atleast
• More peers = less chance of a sybil attack
• I don't want to overload tor nodes for services that aren't really necessary...
• Slow... If you want to sync your node over Tor, it won't take hours, but days or weeks
• It's a little harder to setup...

As we know, we have the option to run Bitcoin Core either through the clearnet or through Tor. For me, Tor is a must. As long as it improves my privacy, it's an option I definitely wouldn't skip.

However, some people would rather run it through the clearnet. Are you running it through Tor? Why? (If your answer is negative, why not?) Do you have a specific reason?

Also, do you believe it would be better if Bitcoin Core required Tor?